How Hybrid Caviar Is Labelled

Two codes, one x, and a reversal that changes the parentage on paper. Under CITES, SCHxDAU identifies a hybrid with a male Amur sturgeon parent and a female Kaluga parent. Under Codex Annex A, that same parentage is written DAUxSCH. Before reading a hybrid caviar label, establish which convention it follows.

How hybrid caviar is labelled under CITES

The hybrid belongs in the first field of the CITES label, where a single species code would otherwise sit. The source field has a different job: it describes the specimen's origin under CITES, not its parentage.

The universal system uses a non-reusable label on the primary container, the receptacle directly touching the caviar. Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP17), Annex 1, sets out the labelling guidelines. Annex 2 supplies the species codes and the rule for ordering hybrid parents.

That rule is explicit: “code for the species of the male x code for the species of the female”. The US rule at 50 CFR 23.71(b)(2)(i) follows the same order and expressly requires an x between the codes.

For the remaining fields and repacking variants, see the full CITES code guide. The label supports traceability; verifying that the declared fish identity matches the contents requires more than the label itself.

Why the CITES code puts the male parent first

Read a CITES hybrid code from male to female. The second species code therefore identifies the female parent of the hybrid fish whose roe is in the container.

Neither code represents a separate roe ingredient. Nor does its position tell you how strongly the hybrid resembles one parent or the other. The order records parentage, not a measure of resemblance.

Codex reads the cross the other way round

Codex CXS 291-2010, Annex A, Table 1, lists identification codes with the female species first, followed by the male species. Its naming provision also requires the common name of a hybrid to include the word hybrid. Naming the parent species is optional under that provision.

Codex is an international food standard, not an instruction to reverse the CITES seal. Its legal effect depends on adoption in the relevant jurisdiction; it is not automatically binding national law.

Trade prose may also name the female first. Rather than guessing at an unexplained cross, write male parent and female parent explicitly in specifications. Identify whether any accompanying code follows CITES or Codex.

Worked examples with parents named

For the documented Kaluga and Amur cross discussed here, the male parent is Amur sturgeon, Acipenser schrenckii, and the female parent is Kaluga, Huso dauricus.

Under CITES, that gives SCHxDAU. Apply the Codex Annex A convention to exactly the same parentage and it becomes DAUxSCH.

Now consider DAUxSCH presented specifically as a CITES hybrid code. It describes the reverse parentage: a male Kaluga parent and a female Amur sturgeon parent. That is how the rule reads; it does not establish that this reciprocal cross is farmed or traded.

These scientific names follow the CITES context. For the fish themselves, rather than the marking convention, see the hybrid caviar hub and the Kaluga and Amur cross.

A teaching label, field by field

Teaching example, not a real label: XXXxYYY/Q/ZZ/0000/0000/000. Every value is deliberately invalid or a placeholder. Never copy this string onto commercial packaging.

For original packing, the year field records harvest. Repacking uses different year and facility details.

Keep origin and repacking location separate. The country of origin remains distinct from the repacker's country, so a repacking address cannot tell you where the roe originated.

What must the food name say?

The wildlife code and the food name do different jobs. A correctly formed CITES code does not, by itself, satisfy food labelling law. Requirements for writing both parent species in the retail name depend on the jurisdiction.

EU: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, Article 7, prohibits misleading food information, including statements about identity and composition. Article 17 requires the legal name or, where none exists, a customary or descriptive name. A brand or fancy name cannot take its place.

Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013, Article 35, requires scientific names for specified Annex I categories. That requirement does not automatically extend to processed caviar under heading 1604. Customs classification and retail naming rules must therefore be assessed separately.

UK: Great Britain applies its assimilated version of the food-information regulation, with domestic amendments. Northern Ireland applies EU food-information law. Check the relevant text when approving artwork rather than treating the two as interchangeable.

US: FDA's nonbinding CPG Sec. 540.150 recommends unqualified caviar only for salted sturgeon roe. For other fish roe, it recommends the fish's common or usual name alongside caviar, with substantially equal type size and prominence. It also recommends a prominent declaration where artificial colour is added.

The FDA guidance does not require both sturgeon parents to be written out in every case. For a hybrid, a clear description such as “hybrid sturgeon caviar”, supplemented by explicitly identified parents where appropriate, saves consumers from having to decipher an unexplained code.

Check that wording against national food naming requirements. The food labelling law guide covers product-specific naming alongside the separate requirements for ingredients, allergens and other mandatory particulars.

Jurisdiction check for professional use

The international system and its national implementation need separate checks. Use this table to identify the relevant framework; an unresolved hybrid-specific rule does not remove the duty to provide legally required information.

For China, Japan, Switzerland, the UAE, Russia and Australia, see Caviar Labelling Laws for national requirements and any applicable 125 g personal effects exemption.

Checking a hybrid specification before approval

Start with documented parentage, not the order of a marketing name. Record the supplier's male parent and female parent in separate fields. Compare both with the species entry on the CITES label and the accompanying trade documents.

When transcribing a CITES record, preserve the original code. If a food specification also uses Codex ordering, state that convention explicitly. Do not silently reverse the string or treat the two representations of the same parentage as different products.

Review the consumer-facing name separately against the destination's food law. Naming only one parent can create a misleading impression even when the wildlife code is correctly formed. Assess the complete presentation under the applicable law.

If the supplier's explanation conflicts with the code, request a documented correction before approving the specification. For a separate investigation of identity claims, see hybrid caviar sold as a pure species. Label review checks the paperwork; it is not a species-authentication test.